Page 565 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
idea that it is the most capable entity to provide advice on this issue? There are many important organisations such as the community sector groups themselves that could do so. I was pleased to hear that ACTCOSS has been found a home in what was the Griffith primary school—sadly, at the expense of the Griffith library, in a way. But I want to reiterate the point that an organisation like ACTCOSS, in particular, should be in the city, so I hope this is just an interim step.
I am concerned that the amendment opens the process to more controversy and distrust. There was talk about community consultation, but we have no timelines and no indication of how that community consultation will occur. We know that the statutory obligation requires consultation only when there is a change in lease purpose. I am still seeking assurance from the minister that that is not the case here.
There is still an indication that sites may remain unused for a long time. I would be interested in knowing what meetings, correspondence and other consultations the ministers for TAMS and for planning have had with property developers and their representative bodies on this issue. They have not had consultations with the groups.
Even with respectful consultation, what happens if we cannot see how the consultation feeds into the process and the impact that that consultation has? Mr Hargreaves began his speech with various comments. I am quite impervious to the sort of comments that Mr Hargreaves throws at me, which are really totally beyond the pale. But to say that he will not release the documents to us because we are not either the government or the opposition indicates contempt for a whole lot of organisations that did not get elected into the Assembly in huge numbers. That is what it boils down to. Apparently they are the only ones worth listening to.
It made me wonder whether this is the only way that you can counter our proposition. Has the minister forgotten minority government and the role of the Greens—and, in the last parliament, the Democrats and an independent—in decision making? Some people might feel that that led to preferable outcomes; it certainly meant that a lot more documents were made public.
In relation to Mr Hargreaves’s comment that they are not pushing people out of Civic, let me say this: no, maybe not deliberately, but the cost of renting in Civic is beyond most community organisations. I agree that the multicultural community has done very well, and I have congratulated the government on the Theo Notaras centre several times. But I am sure that Mr Hargreaves will remember that the current Griffin Centre was not built to the specifications that the community organisations wanted. I have been there several times—many, many times—because it is still a centre of community activity in Civic, but it is an office building that houses a number of community organisations and it suffers from those kinds of problems. I am very happy to sit down and talk with the minister about the issues that have been raised with me. The situation has probably has been greatly exacerbated by the impact of the super-cell storm.
It is good that consultation has begun. But it is not so good to hear arrogant statements such as “we will make decisions when we decide we want to make the decisions”. It is good that an initial review of sites is being conducted, but I had to move this motion here today to hear that. The essence of my motion is that the consultation should be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .